tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: kernel frameworks for jumbo frame



On 2019/01/30 23:47, Jason Thorpe wrote:
On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:29 PM, Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:

| Yes, I think something like:
  |
  | 	size_t mbuf_cluster_size_for_size(size_t desired_size);

whatever the name, is unlikely to be needed, that would be
used in the "must specify a supportyed size" variant of the
former, rather than the "pick a supported size that will handle
the request" version that you thought was better (as do I.)

I suppose you're right ... I was thinking that there might be some utility to exposing the information, in the event that it could be useful for some drivers.  I could certainly be left out for now, and exposed at a later time if there was a concrete use for it.

OK. I will write a draft, possibly in this weekend.

On 2019/01/30 22:29, Robert Elz wrote:
     Date:        Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:07:02 +0200
     From:        Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>
     Message-ID:  <F109B171-90D8-4C1A-82C1-3F03066B3CC0%me.com@localhost
...
   | The idea would be that instead of adding additional property fields
   | to struct ifnet, you could add either a prop_dictionary_t or nvlist

Yes, we know that you like property lists ...

They have the advantage that the structs don't need to
keep changing nearly as often when new data is needed,
with the consequential kernel version bumps (and so, it
becomes possible to pull up any changes which require a
new property with new date) but the disadantage that it
is easy for every developer, of every driver (or whatever),
their dog, and each of the dog's fleas, to all add new
properties, ignoring what was done by each of the others,
fail to document them properly (UTSL!) and we end up with
a completely incomprehensible mess, which no-one can
use or understand.

Well, I also feel it little bit too much... Anyway, I will write a
patch to see what it looks like.

On 2019/01/30 21:59, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In article <20190130110317.GC28471%mail.duskware.de@localhost>,
Martin Husemann  <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 07:59:13PM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote:
I think we agree to add API something like

On 2019/01/29 17:32, Maxime Villard wrote:
      int
      m_addjcl(struct mbuf *m, int how, int size)

Just a minor nit: avoid "JCL" in any names - it causes great pain for some
readers.

It is the function that adds support for the Job Control Language to mbufs.

Oops...

Thanks,
rin


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index